California goes after illegal guns

California has just enacted a law (SB 140) that will hasten the confiscation of guns from people who bought their guns legally but due to a conviction for a violent crime, a domestic violence restraining order or mental health issues became disqualified to own a gun. The law was passed by the Democrat-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown On Wednesday.

The law provides $24 million to hire additional 36 state agents who are assigned to confiscate an estimated 39,000 handguns and 1,670 assault weapons now in the hands of these potentially dangerous Californians. The confiscation law has been active in California for over six years, due to budget cut backs was never acted upon. However with a three-year backlog of 40,000 guns illegally owned guns by nearly 20,000 residents, and 15 to 20 new disqualified gun owners everyday the democratically controlled legislature felt compelled to act.

“Today, each California community is a step closer to being safer. This swift action by the Legislature and the Governor to enforce the laws we already have is a wise and worthy investment to reduce gun violence.” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them.” Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) who authored the bill.

“This makes enormous sense and is one of the only ways available to reduce access to already purchased firearms. Universal background checks, as much as we should have them, can affect only the next gun purchased, not the sizable reservoir of guns already out there.” Deborah Azrael, associate director of the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center

The gun lobby did not to oppose the law. However they did try to challenge financing the law from gun owners’ registration fees. They lost the challenge.

The California Senate Public Safety Committee also put forth a series of proposals to strengthen the state’s gun control laws. This included a proposal that would deny gun ownership to people who abuse alcohol and drugs and background checks and licenses for ammunition buyers.

It seems that while radical gun lobby politicians in Washington block even the most benign and popular gun control measures several states have become proactive in passing common sense laws to lower the numbers of gun violence victims. It is clear that the only way this will happen on a national level is when the radical politicians who block every common sense gun control measure are retired to private life.

I don’t see why this couldn’t be accomplished w/ a court order when someone is convicted of a felony or has an order of protection placed on them…..

Instead That C word again …..
This is how it’s going to all start.
Common sense that there is indeed just cause to remove firearms that were purchased legally. (when later they are deemed unfit to own )

I am not sure what you are saying here. With a court order – it would still be a confiscation. Would you object if Mrs. Lanza’s guns had been confiscated? As a law abiding gun owner don’t you want to see guns taken away from criminals and people with an order of protection?

@ Tony B
Although it is important to hear the debate from all sides it is far more important to filter out the propaganda. I could not possible care less about the lies they spread now. Criminals and people with orders of protection should not have guns. Let them scream.

The fact is that another 30 plus Americans will die from gun fire today while those who create the problem are raking in huge amounts of profit. This must stop. It looks like California has taken a bold step in that direction.

@ Lawrence
With all due respect, your fact that “30 plus Americans will die from gun fire today while those who create the problem are raking in huge amounts of profit” means little to most people. Americans die daily from a variety of products, and business is supposed to make profit.

I have provided examples of items like swimming pools, knives, hammers, automobiles, ATV’s/dirt bikes. All items which kill Americans daily, and yet those manufacturers make profit too.

I know you have an idea that change is coming but the “radical” politicians you think are out there have always existed. Believe it or not, they do represent the people, and the people have clearly stated they’ve had enough of gun control efforts.

If you look at history you will see that this has always held true and we’ve cycled through enough politicians on both sides to rehash the debate thoroughly.

California has not taken any “bold” steps. This wouldn’t be news if they went out and enforced the law. Who would knowingly let all these criminals have guns and do nothing about it? Since the Newtown shooting, California got caught with their pants down and now California is trying to explain and rectify its poor enforcement of law.

leonidas
I often do not agree with you but we can discuss the issues in a reasoned manner. I can usually count on that with you. However when you use this particular symbol as your blog tag you should be aware of what it projects to others who read it.

Due to the extremely threatening stance of the radical groups that have hijacked King Leonidas famous quote it has become a symbol of those who are intolerant, biased and highly armed. It is shame but that is how it is.

Therefore it is understandable how easily this quote can be misunderstood in this particular conversation. I believe it would serve you argument well to drop it. It is your choice of course.

@Lawrence White
There may be some white supremacy groups that use it, but they use a number fo things that are in common usage. If it was the first thought of most people, would major university sports teams use it? It’s obvious that it’s not being used in any matter relating to white supremacy, so why bring it up, if not to try and make the person using look like they are associated with one of those groups. That’s a pretty slimy tactic, but it’s not a surprise coming from someone who constantly accuses those who disagree with his views on guns of not caring about the victims of violence.

beefeater
I note that the link is from 2011. I wonder if Michigan State is still using the phrase. Pretty interesting design. It is clear that they were going for the Spartan usage of the term. Not the NRA’s.

BTW – Not everything Nike does turns to gold. Besides they have their own problems with manufacturing practices in the far east.

Finally it should be noted that someone else brought up the name.You just brought it up again. If you have a problem with it – talk to yourself.

@Myself
The uniforms were for a rivalry game in 2011, but the hats are still on sale by the school. No outcry that I can see. If they were the MSU Ganeshes and used a swastika, there would be a huge deal being made over it, even though it would be clear that they were going for the Hindu usage.

Lawrence, I just don’t get it. When I made the first comment above, I had this feeling that there would be some negativity. But then I said, no, who could be against taking guns away from felons? Oh, that’s right, probably most of the same people that have no problem selling them to criminals from the outset by opposing background checks in private sales. First it’s not the gun, it’s the person using it. Now it’s not the person using it? Who or what causes gun violence then? And it appears that one of main points in the new legislation is to appropriate the money to pay for the program and as you stated hasten the process.

For those who are worried that this will lead to confiscation of legal guns, this is nothing. Give Americans another decade or more of 33 states not regulating private sales, and 49 states allowing criminals to keep guns they acquired before conviction, and see where that leaves us.

I am opposed to any felons possessing firearms.
You ave said yourself over and over, that you have issues w/ confiscation and are concerned about registry miss used as a means to someday confiscate.

I have No issues NONE when either one is convicted of felony nor when so much as TRO is put on them then and there for the court to mandate surrender of all firearms.

AGAIN In my view they should have been doing this all along.
Why aren’t they doing this already and why does there require a law containing the “C” word?
If you can’t see the slippery slope which we are now standing on for yourself and is where my concern lies… then w/ all due respect you haven’t been upfront when you say otherwise, w/r/t 2A rights.

Today the criminal, tomorrow its you and me pal.

fwiw I say the same for capital punishment.
Keep em locked up in squalor forever accomplishes the same as keeping them off the street for good.You will spend the same amount incarcerating for life as you will on legal fees for the multiple stages of appeals. It’s a wash there…

And all those appeals are required IMO not to protect the scumbags but protect the falsely accused….

All capital punishment means to me is… If you don’t have the capital? Then you get the punishment!

So for instance – when the authorities hunted down and neutralized the Boston attackers,it means that you and I are next? Anytime the state goes after crime – it is you and I next? Please explain this sentence because at this point it sounds to me like textbook paranoid thinking.

The answer to your question why the state had not been able to move effectively forward up to now is in the text of the article. Did you read it all the way through?

Lawrence it’s no more paranoid than saying that the state can say “we will execute those of 1st degree murder” then slowly the bar creeps lower to include other crimes…
maybe generations and generations later but its bound to happen eventually unless people stand up now while they can before it’s too late.

@ leonidas
Yet the death penalty has never “creeped” to other crimes. I agree it should not exist as all, but let’s keep it real here. Law and order is the hallmark of a civilized nation. Going after criminals with guns is no way an infraction of your rights nor is it a threat to you as a gun owner.

Sorry King Leonidas, in studying gun control for nearly two decades, and having owned guns for over 40 years, I see no impending confiscation of firearms in my lifetime. There are estimates of over 300 million working firearms in America, with no realistic chance of determining who actually possesses most of them. You see the logistics required in California to just try to confiscate 40,000 guns when they know who has them. My worry as it relates to confiscation is for the future generations that will face increasing threat of confiscation, IF we do not address the continued flow and possession of firearms by felons. There will be a tipping point. I am glad to see you are against felons owning guns.

Thank you Leonidas. While we all may not agree on everything pertaining to gun rights on this forum, I have hope that maybe some of our exchanges may have some positive impact if we can find some degree of compromise.

@ Lawrence
If you think that “almost all” of those guns will be recovered then your fantasy world is larger than I thought.

@Ralph
The 24 million they allocated breaks down to $600 per illegal gun. That won’t cover many man hours to bring these guns in. Plus the criminals pick up an additional 15 to 20 illegal guns per day. I want the laws enforced, but the fact is California is in a hole it will never climb out of. If they enforced the law from the beginning, they may have had a chance.

@
Although you both have valid points on this issue – there has been enough said. Please get back to the issue of guns not names.

However once again I remind you leonidas you are choosing a blog tag that many will question. It is clear that many feel this famous quote has been twisted into an overt threat to law and order in our country. I would ask you again to go back to your original tag. If you choose to continue to use this tag please be prepared for the inevitable feedback that will come forth about it.

California has always had this program. This law just adds additional funding for it. It just cross references licensed owners with anyone who might have a potential problem with having become a prohibited person, so expect lot’s of divorced dad’s to get a personal goon visit, given the amount of bogus PPO’s that always appear in divorces.

But of course feel free to post again when there’s an initiative to rid Watts, Compton or Oakland of illegal guns.

@Lawrence White
The only things that will help Watts, Compton, and Oakland are jobs and education. The guns that are being used in crimes there are not going to be taken off the streets by this, because the government doesn’t know they have them.

Give the gang bangers in those areas an alternative to slinging drugs and dying before 30, something that can provide an actual living wage for honest work, and gun violence will plummet without any changes to gun laws.

I do have some questions on this issue. How do people get their property back when the order of protection is no longer in effect? Some locations issue these as standard procedure with any divorce, just to preemptively make sure the parties stay away from each other outside of court. Are the police storing these for free over the course of a lengthy divorce, and then returning them to their owners once the order is lifted? Also, for those convicted of a felony, how are the guns disposed of? Must the guns be confiscated by the state, or can the person be allowed to transfer/sell them to someone who is legally able to own them (so long as the weapons were not use in the commission of the crime that the person is being convicted of)?

@ beefeater
A gun violence victim can not use a job or education.It is my understanding that when there is no order in place the person can own a gun. Of course the gun can not be transferred to a pal. Give me break.

@Lawrence White
Nothing will help a victim once they’re dead. Jobs and education will prevent future victims, and it will do a better job of it than any gun law.

My statements regarding the order of protections are regarding what happens to the firearms owned before the order is in place? Once the order is lifted, does the person get their confiscated property back? If not, then I find that deeply disturbing.

Regarding the transfer of the weapons if someone is convicted of a felony, why would they not be able to sell or transfer the firearm? I’ll lay out a scenario here:

Person A and Person B are brothers. Person A is in possession of an old but well-maintained hunting rifle that has been in the family for generations. Person A is convicted of a crime that triggers this law. If the rifle has absolutely nothing to do with the crime, why should he not be able to transfer it to Person B, so long as Person B is able to pass a background check? Or let’s say the rifle doesn’t have sentimental value, but a high monetary value. Why should Person A not be allowed to sell the weapon to help support his family while he is in prison?

I’m fine with Person A not being allowed to physically possess the rifle, and I’m fine with it being confiscated as evidence if used in the commission of a crime, but confiscation beyond that is a dangerous precedent for all property rights.

@ beefeater
If no order is in place the person would be cleared to own their gun.

It simply makes no sense that the state would take on the liability of transferring a felon’s weapon to a “brother” or anyone else. Confiscating illegal guns particularly from criminals is not an infringement on anyone’s rights but those who are breaking the law or a threat to our personal or national security. When you argue against this sort of commons sense law you lose about 90% of Americans. Frankly I do not understand why radical gun advocates can not see the harm they are doing to their own cause.

@Lawrence White
I don’t think my views are that extreme. I’m not saying that a person convicted of certain crimes should be able to possess a firearm. Not allowing just compensation for something that is not even involved in the crime is a whole other issue, and has implications on property rights far beyond guns.

As I mentioned previously, this is old law, it’s just a funding bill. It involves matching criminal and mental health records with registered pistol owners, so it won’t effect urban crime one bit. Lots of mental health and criminal issues there, just not a lot of registration.

It’s like the same as the goons in Albany and Schenectady, and NY enacts a law microscoping legitimate and licensed pistol owners.

This is why you keep losing, ominous threats about 2014 elections aside. We’re going to go scorched earth the same as 1994.

Bill Clinton:

“Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already…defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing…Jack was convinced that if we didn’t drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners….Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price…would be heavy casualties among its defenders.”

“On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946….The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you’re out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage….” (Pages

“One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement.”

Yes, go ahead and tell me things have changed. They haven’t, and you know it.
___

Let’s see, Bill Clinton and the assault weapons ban. That happened PRIOR to the massacre of children and their teachers at Sandy Hook School. Well things may not have changed since that time for Johnny but they certainly have changed in the rest of the world. Read the article at the link below to see who is suffering the ramifications now. The background check legislation will return and it will pass.

‘Regarding the transfer of the weapons if someone is convicted of a felony, why would they not be able to sell or transfer the firearm? I’ll lay out a scenario here:

Person A and Person B are brothers. Person A is in possession of an old but well-maintained hunting rifle that has been in the family for generations. Person A is convicted of a crime that triggers this law. If the rifle has absolutely nothing to do with the crime, why should he not be able to transfer it to Person B, so long as Person B is able to pass a background check? Or let’s say the rifle doesn’t have sentimental value, but a high monetary value. Why should Person A not be allowed to sell the weapon to help support his family while he is in prison?’
______________________________________________________________________

Just an opinion here, but perhaps Person A should have put some thought into the impact his crime might have on his possessions, his family and most of all his victims before committing that crime. How much sympathy are we really supposed to have for a felon being stripped of some property following the conviction of a serious crime?

Again with molon labe, Leonidas? Yeah, a great & defiant king who held off the overwhelming force posed against him in his walled city for 3 whole days after being commanded to forfeit their arms. Molon labe!

Then his opposition slaughtered every man woman & child within Leonidas’ city. Brave but stupid.

The reason this law was essential was for one reason only: to raise the funds necessary to enforce existing law.

Perhaps Leonidas would at least read the legislation before shooting off blindly.

This is most definitely what we all have been told by our pro-gunners from day one. Enforce the laws and get guns out of the hands of criminals.

Now that one state has taken positive action in this regard, we see how inflexible some who demand this as a first step to meaningfully reduce gun violence.

And now so suddenly that meaningful step has become a “slippery slope.” Such absurdity!

@Lawrence White
My comment 9.6 was not in regard to the order of protection, but the issues of firearms unrelated to a crime being confiscated without allowing the owner to sell them or receive just compensation.

Regarding the order of protection issue, you don’t seem to be understanding what I am getting at. What happens to the firearms that are held by the police while the order of protection is in place? Do the police get rid of those guns, or hold them until the order is lifted, and return them to the owner? That’s what I’m asking.

@ beefeater
If they are a felon and have a gun they will not get it back whether it was used in a crime or not. The police will hold the guns of those under an order of protection until the order is revoked.

The key words here are “legally purchased”. California lawmakers assume that the legally purchased handguns and assault rifles are still in the hands of the purchasers, so there are no guarantees of success. And the states authorities have no process whereby they can track ownership of regular rifles and shotguns, a major defect/oversight. Just another feel-good law that is long on intent but woefully short on enforcement.

I have said this before, but we need to enforce the laws that are already in place. It is already illegal for a felon to own a firearm. California did not make this a new law, they simply made funding available to enforce the already enacted laws. As a responsible gun owner I have no problem with this action. I wish more states would work to get illegal guns off the streets and than we could keep the do nothing congress out.

But they are going to enforce it now, and for that the people responsible for the legislative action should commended. Is it shameful that it took so many high profile tragedies to increase public awareness to the point that politicians finally began to act? Yes, without question.

But if there’s any good that politics provides us, it’s to hold public officers feet to the fire when the will of the people demands it. They don’t always (usually in my opinion) get it right, but they seem to have nailed it on this one.

@ Tony B
I feel that the new laws in California that stand to save countless lives trumps anything that a pro gun person says or calls himself on this day. In fact it proves that the law is not after law abiding citizens. The law is clearly aimed at those who present a threat to society. They are the only ones who have to worry about “come and take it” because now someone will.

If leonidas wants to place what is commonly seen as a negative brand on himself I am quite willing to allow him to do so.

@ Lawrence
You blindly state that the new law in California will save countless lives. Those that have these guns are now well aware someone wants to “come and take it”. And they won’t give them up easily. Shots will be fired and more lives will be lost in the process.

@ Steve
More surrender from Steve. Dude, shots are being fired now. Today 30 or more Americans will die from gunfire with many more injured. You seem to be asking us to just lie dow and take it. At least some the states are proactive while the gun lobby politicians in DC block every attempt to do something about it.

@ Lawrence
To lie down and take it is a personal choice, and even if I asked, would you? I doubt it.

Do you really think California is being proactive? They passed this law SIX years ago.

You constantly refer to the loss of life daily, I simply pointed out this landmark legislation will cause more gun violence. Most people and myself have no concern of the shots being fired. Of the 30 Americans who will die today, how many are criminals? Gang bangers, drug dealers, robbers? Convicted criminals who own guns?

@ Steve
On one hand you attempt to diminish the suffering of gun violence victims by relating them to criminals and then you say we should not try to disarm criminals because it will lead to countless shoot-outs. As with most gun radicals who love ultra liberal gun laws, your argument seems more like weak excuses than anything close to plan to bring down the number of gun violence victims.

What I have said though, is that California should have enforced this law from the beginning. They wouldn’t be in this dangerous situation now if they had.

What I am also asking is, how many of your 30 American deaths daily are criminals? A person who was armed and lost their life in a shootout with police, or other criminals. Yes, I diminish their suffering. You play, you pay.

Mass shootings at schools or elsewhere? That’s a different story, and empathy should be with the victims.

But how does this law or any of them prevent what recently occurred? Seems to me the problem with the shooters lied in their mental health and I’ve seen very little done to combat this.

“California should have enforced this law from the beginning. They wouldn’t be in this dangerous situation now if they had.” Steve
_______________________________________
I enjoy the debate Steve but please try to get your fact straight prior to posting. Go back and read the article to understand why California has not been enforcing the law up to now.

Finally – no law stops all crime, but it can cut down on the numbers. Doing nothing because you can’t do everything is just an excuse.

The fact is correct, like it or not. Had they enforced the law from the beginning, they wouldn’t be in this situation. Perhaps I read better than you think.

Lack of funds is no excuse. Law enforcement agencies do the best they can at enforcing all laws with the resources they have. We don’t just stop investigating crimes because the money doesn’t exist.

None of this would be relevant if it hadn’t come to light in the wake of the mass shootings and gun control debate. California and their State Police should be ashamed. They sat by for six years and did nothing.

“Today, each California community is a step closer to being safer. This swift action by the Legislature and the Governor to enforce the laws we already have is a wise and worthy investment to reduce gun violence.” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)

Today, no community in California is a step closer to being safer. Not one of those guns has been confiscated yet. In fact, many communities have been at risk for up to six years, and California has known along. For Mr. Steinberg to call this action SWIFT and WISE is laughable.

“We are fortunate in California to have the first and only system in the nation that tracks and identifies individuals who at one time made legal purchases of firearms but are now barred from possessing them.” Mark Leno (D-San Francisco)

For six years criminals in that state have amassed a small arsenal. How many crimes could have been prevented. And Mr. Leno has the gall to say California is fortunate.

Steve:
While the laws were on the books in the past, the State of California was in a fiscal crisis during the years Mr. Schwartzenegar was Governor. Budgets were severely cut to meet fiscal balance.

Problems are infinite. Money is finite. Decisions must be made. Where do we want to spend our money? They’ve decided to spend some on getting illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. Surely you don’t object to that. It’s what every radical pro-gun individual has asked for. ‘Enforce existing law’. Okay. That is what CA is doing.

I won’t be doing the back-n-forth with you. I’ve stated my opinion. I’ve read yours. I realize, as you’ve said in your own words, “you are marvelous at many things.’ AND you can outwit Mr. White because you are so much smarter.’ I respectfully disagree with that in it’s entirety.
Regards.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.